EXECUTIVE SUMMARY •1. Key findingsThis study examines the land use and
greenhouse gas implications of UK food consumption change away from carbon
intensive products. It shows that the UK agricultural land base can support
increased consumption of plant-based products arising from the reduced
consumption of livestock products. A 50% reduction in livestock product
consumption reduces the area of arable and grassland required to supply UK food,
both in the UK and overseas. It also reduces emissions of greenhouse gases from
primary production by 19%. A switch from beef or sheepmeat (red meat) to pork or
poultry (white meat) reduces food consumption related greenhouse gas emissions
and the land area required but increases overseas arable land use. With this
exception, the release of arable land now used to grow animal feed exceeds the
additional arable land required for increased plant based foods in both the UK
and overseas. Reducing livestock product consumption also has the potential to
enable delivery of other significant environmental benefits, for example,
reductions in ammonia and nitrate emissions. A 50% reduction in livestock
product consumption reduces UK grassland needs for UK food production by several
million hectares. This land could be used to supply livestock products for
export markets although our scenarios assume that the proportions of imports,
domestic production and exports remain constant. In these circumstances, some of
the grassland released could be used to produce arable crops, including crops
for biofuel production. Almost all of it could be converted to woodland or
managed in other ways for biodiversity and/or amenity purposes. Conversion of
this land resource to woodland has significant potential to increase soil carbon
storage while supplying biomass for energy. Scenario Cropped area required, kha
Grassland area required, kha Total area, kha Greenhouse gas emissions, kt CO2e/
year * UK OS Total UK OS Total UK OS Total Baseline 3,388 4,458 7,846 11,228
1,944 13,172 21,018 51,693 29,001 80,694 50% reduction in livestock with land
release priority: Uniform 3,123 4,131 7,254 4,161 700 4,861 12,115 36,282 29,456
65,738 Maximise non-tillable land release 3,123 4,131 7,254 2,905 700 3,605
10,859 36,246 29,451 65,697 Maximise release of tillable land 3,123 4,131 7,254
7,102 700 7,802 15,056 36,282 29,457 65,739 Red to white meat with land release
priority: Uniform 3,443 4,908 8,351 3,879 486 4,365 12,716 45,812 27,575 73,387
Maximise release of non-tillable land 3,443 4,909 8,352 2,909 486 3,395 11,747
45,867 27,572 73,439 Maximise release of tillable land 3,443 4,908 8,351 6,947
486 7,433 15,784 45,878 27,575 73,453 50% reduction in white meat consumption:
Uniform 3,201 3,735 6,936 11,228 1,944 13,172 20,108 49,525 28,500 78,025 * The
greenhouse gas emissions do not include possible effects of land use
changeSummary table. The area of land needed to supply UK food and the
greenhouse gas emissions from food production under current circumstances and
under the seven scenarios studied. In a reduction scenario, concentrating
remaining livestock production on different land types (e.g. concentrating on
intensive production on lowland farms versus extensive production on lower
quality land) has little effect on greenhouse gas emissions from primary
production. This indicates that there is relatively little scope to reduce
emissions by restructuring production (at least restructuring in relation to
land use). It is further noted that concentrating livestock production on higher
quality land would cause an almost complete closure of production for UK markets
on land not suited to intensive grass or arable production, with biodiversity
and economic impacts (discussed further below). The risks of unintended
consequences with respect to greenhouse gas emissions are relatively low given
the assumptions in the scenarios, but the actuality of such change will depend
on future economic, social and political drivers. The report includes detailed
analyses of land use and emissions data together with extensive discussion of a
wide range of effects based on literature analysis. •2. Study objectivesThis
study was conducted for the UK Government's Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to
examine if UK agriculture can support consumption change away from carbon-
intensive food products. For the purposes of the consumption scenarios, it is
assumed the relationships between imports, exports and domestic consumption
remain constant for each of the commodities used by the UK food system. The
following questions were addressed: 1. Land needs: Given land quality
considerations (e.g. land capability and constraints), to what extent is it
possible to support a change in the UK consumption of meat and dairy products
with a corresponding increase in substitute goods from UK agricultural land? Can
a reduction in meat and dairy product consumption release land for other
purposes? To what use would this freed-up land be suitable (e.g. food
production, biomass production, carbon sequestration, other ecosystem service
provision, forestry, etc.)? 2. Greenhouse gas emissions: What are the
implications of the transition in production for GHGs both in the UK and abroad
(including soil carbon releases, sequestration, reduced production of feed, etc,
as well as reductions in direct N2O and CH4 emissions? 3. Other effects: What
are the other implications, including for water, other pollutants, farm incomes,
availability of manure as a fertiliser input, public health, ecosystem services,
biodiversity, and animal welfare? 4. International implications: If UK
agricultural land cannot support consumption changes, what are the international
implications in terms of agricultural production and land-use displacement (e.g.
deforestation, land for biofuels, land for food), and GHGs?•3. MethodsWe
developed and used a combination of consumption and production scenarios to
examine potential consequences of change. Life-cycle assessment (mainly life
cycle inventory analysis) was applied to these scenarios to examine the overall
effects of the consumption change on GHG and other emissions from primary
production, in the UK and overseas. The production under the various scenarios
was allocated to agricultural land resources by a combination of survey-based
data analysis and model-derived calculations. Land use change (LUC) emissions
(from changing soil C and biomass stocks) were calculated from data in the UK
national inventory as well as from the UK Renewable Fuel Agency for overseas
land types. Commodity flows as affected by consumption were calculated from
FAOSTAT and Defra data. The resulting emissions were allocated to the various
inventories in which they are registered, e.g. the UK's GHG inventories for
agriculture, LUC, energy use and industry, together with those from overseas
that are made up by components from our UK consumption of food and drink.
Scientific literature relevant to the wider assessment of these scenarios was
analysed (and an ecosystems services method was applied) to enable a qualitative
assessment to complement the quantitative analysis. ScenariosWe designed a range
of consumption and production scenarios to examine options on both the demand
and supply sides. These comprise three consumption and three production
scenarios. The consumption scenarios are as follows: Consumption Scenario 1. A
50% reduction in livestock product consumption balanced by increases in plant
commodities. Consumption Scenario 2. A shift from red meat (beef and lamb) to
white meat (pork and poultry). Red meat consumption is reduced by 75%.
Consumption Scenario 3. A 50% reduction in white meat consumption balanced by
increases in plant commodities. It must be stressed that the nature of scenarios
is such that they contain a variety of assumptions about possible future demands
and supplies of agricultural commodities. The scenarios are not forecasts. The
focus has been on the technical capacity of land and agricultural production,
not on the market changes needed to enable change. It should be noted that the
balance of supply from the UK and overseas is assumed to remain as it is now.
The 50% reduction in livestock products was not applied uniformly across these
commodities. Under the reduction scenario (Consumption scenario 1), consumption
of milk and eggs is 60% of current consumption, and meat consumption is 36% of
current consumption. Sugar consumption is also reduced to align with healthy
eating guidelines. Reduction in consumption of livestock products is balanced by
increasing plant consumption on the basis of constant food energy supplied.
Fruit and vegetable consumption was increased by 50% and basic carbohydrate
(e.g. cereals, potatoes) and oil rich commodities (except palm oil) by 33%.
Substitution was estimated on the basis of food energy use at the commodity
level using FAOSTAT data. Expert opinion was obtained in relation to the
viability of consumption change under Scenario 1. This indicated that diets at
the consumer level under this scenario are viable from a nutritional viewpoint.
It was also noted that Consumption Scenario 1 aligns with healthy eating
guidelines in other countries. The production scenarios are focused on the
intensity of use of different types of land. The result is a difference in the
quantity and type of land ‘released' from production from change that reduces
land needs. The production scenarios are: Production Scenario 1. Uniform land
release - ‘pro-rata' changes in land requirements across land types. Production
Scenario 2. Maximise release of tillable land - ruminant meat production
concentrated on lower quality land. Production Scenario 3. Maximise release of
low quality land - ruminant meat production concentrated on high quality land.
The combination of consumption scenarios 1 and 2 and three production scenarios
gives a total of 6 system scenarios. These are complemented by Consumption
Scenario 3 giving a total of 7. •4. ResultsLand needsAll consumption change
scenarios reduce the total amount of land estimated as required to support the
UK food system. A switch from red to white meat increases the need for overseas
arable land, although a larger area of UK land that can be tilled is released.
Under a reduction scenario, the amount of extra land required for the direct
consumption of plant products is less than the amount of arable land released
from livestock feed production. The net effect on total overseas arable land
needs is a reduction of about 311,000 ha and a net release of about 265,000 ha
arable land in the UK. The need for grassland is greatly reduced. The release of
grassland with some arable potential ranges between 1.6 to 3.7 million ha
depending on where remaining production is concentrated. The release of
grassland with no arable potential ranges from 0.7 to 6.9 million ha. Under a
reduction scenario, concentrating remaining production on better quality land
would almost entirely eliminate sheep and beef production for the UK from the
hills, most uplands and less productive lowland areas. Under Consumption
Scenario 2 (a shift from beef and sheepmeat to white meat from pigs and
poultry), the diet needs of pigs and poultry result in a net increase in demand
for overseas grown crops, although considerably more potentially arable land is
released in the UK. More arable cropping is needed both in the UK (an additional
55,000 ha) and to a much greater extent overseas (about an additional 466,000
ha), driven largely by soy. However, the release of arable quality grassland in
the UK exceeds the increase in overseas arable landed needed for producing this
feed. The result is a net release of between 1.6 and 2.9million ha potentially
arable land in the UK plus the release of 1.3 to 6.6 millionha of land suitable
only for grassland. Under Consumption Scenario 3 (a 50% reduction in white meat
consumption balanced by an increase in plant products) the changes are much less
complex with no changes in grassland needs. Increases in demand for arable land
for direct human consumption amounted to about 154,000 and 172,000 ha (domestic
and overseas respectively), but these are more than compensated for by the
release of arable land from feed production (341,000 and 668,000ha domestic and
overseas respectively). Focusing a reduced cattle and sheep industry on non-
arable land would result in the release of substantially more tillable land
(currently grassland). In a 50% livestock production consumption reduction
scenario, maximising the use of lower grade land (semi-natural grassland, hill
land etc.) releases 3.7 million of tillable grassland (including 1.3million ha
of good arable land). The opposite approach of withdrawing production from less
capable land releases just 1.7 millionha of potentially arable land, with almost
no release of the grassland well suited for to arable production. The land-use
trade-off is therefore clear. Under a 50% livestock consumption reduction
scenario, 2 million ha of tillable grassland is required to compensate for the
withdrawal of cattle and sheep production from 6.9 million ha of non-tillable
grassland. A 50% reduction in livestock product consumption opens up the
opportunity to release about half of UK land currently used for UK food supplies
if remaining production is concentrated on the more capable land. If land is
released uniformly, almost two-thirds of this release takes place on grassland
not suited to arable production and the remaining third is grassland with some
arable potential. There would be with higher levels of land release in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland than in England. Depending on where the remaining
production takes place, a large proportion of land released may be very
unproductive, but it can be assumed that about 5 million ha with potential for
other agricultural uses would be available, for example for the production of
livestock for export (if they did not reduce their livestock consumption), for
producing arable biofuel crops, planted woodland and re-wilding (to natural
woodland in many cases). Greenhouse gas emissionsAll consumption scenarios
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from primary production. The largest reduction
is from a livestock reduction scenario (Consumption Scenario 1): from 81 to
66MtCO2e (19% reduction). The switch from red to white meat reduces emissions by
9% and a 50% reduction in white meat consumption by only 3%. The net effect on
emissions depends greatly on the alternative use of the grassland released from
food production. The study indicates the range of possible consequences on soil
and biomass fluxes. If all tillable grassland released from food production was
converted to arable use, 8 to 17MtCO2e per year would be released over 20 years
through the effects of land use change. Converting all released land with the
potential to support good tree growth to woodland would cause a net carbon
uptake equivalent to about 7.5 to 9.5MtCO2e per year in soil and wood per year
over 20 years. Land use preference (e.g. focusing remaining production on high
quality land) has little effect on emissions. This is an important result
indicating that supply chain emissions are unresponsive to changes in industry
structure with respect to the land used. The location of emissions reductions
(UK or overseas) was identified. Currently, we estimate that 36% of primary
production emissions are overseas. All scenarios reduce UK emissions while
Consumption Scenario 1 has little effect on overseas emissions and Consumption
Scenario 2 reduces overseas emissions by 5%. None of the scenarios involve a net
export of emissions and the GHG reduction benefits in the UK are proportionally
greater than those overseas because of the tight link between UK livestock
consumption and production. OTHER EFFECTS Other emissions All consumption
scenarios are expected to reduce other emissions. Consumption Scenario 1 halves
ammonia emissions. Reductions in nitrate emissions, eutrophication emissions
generally, and acidification are almost as large (ca 45%). Biodiversity and
carbon sequestration It is widely asserted that grassland, especially semi-
natural grassland, has a higher biodiversity value compared with other types of
vegetation, natural climax vegetation for example. It is often claimed that the
retention of these grasslands is important for the continued delivery of some
ecosystem services, for example, carbon sequestration. In many other European
countries, the uplands and hills are usually wooded. For example, 32% and 29% of
the land area in Germany and France respectively are wooded compared with 12% in
the UK. Thus conversion to climax woodland or other forms of forestry is one
obvious alternative use for released grassland. Our study has identified
benefits for carbon sequestration in soil when grassland is converted to
woodland (there should also be potential benefits in the use of harvested wood).
Our analysis of land use statistics reveals the large proportion of UK land
currently occupied by cattle and sheep. Without these livestock, this grassland
(much of which is semi-natural grassland) would revert to the natural vegetation
- deciduous woodland in many cases. Our results show that the use of livestock
to retain semi-natural grasslands is not dependent on the current high level of
livestock product consumption. A 50% reduction in demand still leaves a market
which is large enough to support this activity. However, given how a declining
market affects all suppliers, a livestock reduction scenario presents special
challenges to the maintenance of semi-natural grasslands. Livestock systems
provide a wide range of services that are currently used by society. In a
reduction scenario, rural areas lose skills and employment in the livestock
sector and there would be ramifications for linked industries such as the meat
processing or veterinary sectors. Culturally important features, for example,
hedgerows and stone walls, and much of the fauna and flora associated with
grassland would be no longer needed. In the UK as a whole, land that is most
likely to be taken out of production is associated with difficult production
conditions. In England, upland moorland and common land now in a semi-natural
state could change to fully natural vegetation cover. In upland areas, where the
majority of re-wilding under Consumption Scenario 1 and 2 would be located,
evidence suggests that various natural communities including scrub, bracken,
bramble, and woodland with their own assemblage of flora and fauna are likely to
develop, with potential increases in wild herbivores such as deer, hares, and
rabbits. The majority of SSSIs currently under-grazed occur in lowland areas,
for example in southern and eastern parts of England, and a lack of livestock
results in difficulty in applying the grazing pressure required to maintain the
semi-natural faunal and floral diversity. Recreational access to the uplands,
which is now facilitated by open grassland landscapes, may be impaired and
evidence suggests that visitors view the loss of traditional semi-natural
landscapes, with associated meadows, hedges, and stone walls, negatively. Whilst
a reduction in the current ecosystem service provision associated with livestock
production from cattle and sheep can be expected under Consumption Scenarios 1
and 2, the net change is also dependent on the alternative use to which land is
put. In upland SSSIs, overgrazing is often problematic and reducing grazing
pressure may allow semi-natural habitats to recover, in particular dwarf shrub
heaths, bogs, acid grassland and upland habitats. The release of large areas of
land could also be used to diversify upland areas. For example, semi-natural
upland woodlands have declined by 30-40% since the 1950s and the UK Habitat
Action Plan has therefore included a target to increase the area of upland oak
woodland through planting or natural regeneration of current open ground. In the
lowlands, approximately 10% of the current arable land could be released for
other activities, such as bioenergy crops, woodlands, recreational land, wetland
creation, nature reserves, flood protection, carbon sequestration, and urban
development. Each of these land uses will have its own specific range and flow
of ecosystem services associated with it. While in general, the release of
agricultural land with high environmental value from food production is not
viewed as positive, Defra has concluded that there are likely to be situations
where positive outcomes can occur. Economic considerations The reduction in the
amount of land needed to supply the UK goes hand-in-hand with a reduction in the
value added by agriculture supplying UK consumed food. A 50% reduction in
livestock product consumption (Consumption Scenario 1) reduces the UK farm-gate
value of livestock products from £7.6 to 3.5 billion. The farm-level economic
impact of a change along these lines will depend crucially on what replacement
output is found for the land released and on market effects that are beyond the
scope of this study. One economic response scenario is that the land resource
released remains in agriculture serving export markets. Another strategy is to
use the land for non-food purposes. Using biomass energy cropping as a benchmark
and assuming a price of £40/tonne dry matter biomass wood, we estimate that
replacing the value of the food output of higher quality land released will be
challenging, although it is reported that biomass energy is an economically
viable alternative to sheep production on uplands.[1] Potential unexpected or
unintended consequences Changes to UK crop production The general conclusion
that a reduction in livestock production consumption will have little effect in
total arable land requirements masks some important regional effects. This
scenario will reduce arable crop production for livestock feed and increase
arable production for direct human consumption, including a 50% increase in
fruit and vegetables. The increase of 0.6 million ha of UK crops for human
consumption includes an increase of about 0.2 million ha in potatoes, field
vegetables and fruit. Research indicates that agricultural change driven by
healthy eating recommendations will result in expansion of production of these
crops particularly in the south and east of England.[2] Many of these crops are
irrigated and some are protected using for example poly-tunnels. Whilst the
change in land use is small in absolute terms, the local effects on water
resources and landscape could be significant. It should be noted however that
the increase in fresh fruit and vegetable consumption in these scenarios arise
from the full implementation of current UK healthy eating guidelines (‘five-a-
day') and are not just a consequence reduced livestock product consumption.
Potential unexpected or unintended consequencesUneven distribution of economic
effects The effect of a contraction in the value of farm output for UK markets
will be unevenly distributed. There will be many losers, but also some winners.
Given regional land quality characteristics, almost all Welsh, Scottish and
Northern Irish farmers would be affected by output contraction counterbalanced
by output growth in the south and east of England. Effects on overseas land use
The reduction in livestock product consumption will have little effect overall
on net overseas land needs. Release of land in South America and the USA used
for animal feed, especially soy, will be counter-balanced by increases in a wide
range of crops elsewhere. The consumption changes also reduce the need for
overseas grassland. This affects three countries in particular: Ireland (dairy
products, beef), New Zealand (butter and lamb), and South America (beef). The
effect on Brazil is now small as imports have dwindled in recent years but the
change would close off the UK as a growth market for Brazilian beef in the
longer term. The effects on Ireland are particularly significant. •5.
ConclusionThis study has clearly shown that UK land can support consumption
change that reduces greenhouse gas emissions from the food system. The reduction
in land needed to supply the UK that comes with a reduction in livestock product
consumption brings potential environmental benefits and significant
opportunities to deliver other products, including other ecosystem services,
from UK agricultural land. The study has shown that some risks currently argued
as arising from consumption change are small. In particular the study shows that
arable land needs will not increase if the consumption of livestock products is
decreased. The risk that emissions will be exported is also shown to be small.
The identification of the significant potential benefits of consumption change
combined with the low risks of unintended consequences has far-reaching
implications for guidance to consumers and the development of agricultural
policy. The results are broadly applicable to other European countries which
means they are relevant to international policy development, for example the
reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [1] Heaton, R.J., Randerson, P.F.,
Slater, F.M. 1999. The economics of growing short rotation coppice in the
uplands of mid-Wales and an economic comparison with sheep production. Biomass
and Bioenergy 17: 59-71. [2] Jones, P.J. and Tranter, R.B. 2007. Modelling the
impact of different policy scenarios on farm business management, land use and
rural employment Project Document No. 13. Implications of a nutrition driven
food policy for land use and the Rural Environment. Work package No

en_UK

dc.language.iso

en_UK

-

dc.title

Food, land and greenhouse gases The effect of changes in UK food consumption on
land requirements and greenhouse gas emissions. Report for the Committee on
Climate Change.